IEE/Schadow, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 704 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IEE/Schadow, Inc. and Donna Brelje. Cases 18-CA-
4712 and 18-CA-4802
November 1, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On June 22, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Rich-
ard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a, supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional ,Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions I of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent,
IEE/Schadow, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi-
fied:
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Make whole Jeanie Henson, Jo Ellen Elias,
and Donna Brelje for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered as specified in `The Remedy,' in accor-
dance with the formula established in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)."
1 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's findings regarding Bre1le's October 2 suspension.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Minneapolis, Minnesota, on March 11
and 12, 1976, based on charges filed on September 8 and
December 2, 1975, and a complaint issued February 10,
1976, alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act. The General Counsel and Respondent have
filed briefs)
Upon the entire record in the case , including my obser-
vation of the witnesses , and upon consideration of the
briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Minnesota corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of electrical component
parts and related products at its principle office and place
of business in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. During, the year
ending December 31, 1975, a representative period, Re-
spondent purchased and received at its Eden Prairie facil-
ity, directly from points outside the State of Minnesota,
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. During
the same period Respondent manufactured, sold, and dis-
tributed at its Eden Prairie facility products valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to points out-
side the State of Minnesota. On the basis of the above facts
admitted in the answer, I find that Respondent is now, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
I find that International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local No. 292, AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to
as the Union , is, and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by:
(a) Soliciting employees to meet with management in or-
der to air their grievances , and by directing employees to
solicit employee grievances.
(b) Threatening Jeanie Henson with discharge because
of her union activities on or about June 18.
2. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act by:
(a) Denying Jeanie Henson a wage increase on or about
June 27.
(b) Suspending Donna Brelje, Jo Ellen Elias, and Jeanie
Henson for 2 days on or about September 5.
(c) Suspending Donna Brelje for 18 days on or about
October 2.
(d) Discharging Donna Brelje on or about November
25.
(e) Issuing various disciplinary warnings and repri-
mands to employees Brelje, Elias, and Henson between
June and October 1975.
1 Respondent's motion to correct the record, being unopposed, is granted
226 NLRB No. 112
IEE/SCHADOW, INC.
B. A Description of Respondent's Operations, Supervisory
Structure, Discipline Policy, and the Genesis of the Union
Campaign
Respondent manufactures electrical switches, utilizing a
two-phase operation with each phase occupying a physi-
cally distinct area of the plant. The switch itself is made in
the switch assembly area, otherwise commonly known as
the "Schadow side," from which it - passes to the "IEE
side," or modular assembly area, where the switch is in-
stalled in a chassis and the buttons are put in place. The
custom of referring to the two manufacturing areas as
"sides" is significant with respect to one of the issues in this
case. It is undisputed that Tom Olson began his employ-
ment with Respondent as production manager over the
modular assembly area on March 31, 1975 2 He remained
in this position until October 2 when he was reassigned to
perform the same function over the switch assembly area,
and Marlene Morgan was hired to fill the vacancy created
by Olson's transfer. Both Olson and Morgan reported to
General Manager Dwayne Kinney, or in his absence to
Kinney's deputy, Sales Manager Herman Sinn. Assisting
Olson and Morgan in overseeing their respective opera-
tions were Supervisors Joanne Bliese (terminated Septem-
ber 19 and replaced by Jackie Fritzke) and Marion Lundin.
Following his arrival, Olson noticed the absence of any
formal company rules. Since in his view there were several
problem areas relating to employee conduct, namely, at-
tendance, tardiness, smoking, and breaks, Olson formulat-
ed a series of 11 standing assembly rules which were posted
and explained to the employees in a meeting on May 7.
Important to the issues in this case are the following rules:
(1) Unnecessary absence from work will be consid-
ered grounds for dismissal. You must call in by 9:00
a.m.
(6) Smoking will be permitted in the lunchroom only,
not in the washroom.
(7) Employees will be on the production line, ready to
work at starting time in the morning. Everyone except
those designated to special clean up will remain on the
production line until 5 minutes prior to closing time.
(10) The use of abusive language directed to another
employee or a supervisor will not be tolerated.
The May 7 announcement also specified that "Commit-
ting any of ... [prohibited acts] will be grounds for disci-
plinary action ranging from reprimand to immediate dis-
charge, depending on management's judgment as to the
seriousness of the offense." It is undisputed, consistent
with this notice, that although the enforcement of the rules
involved various degrees of discipline, including the is-
suance of verbal and written warnings and the use of sus-
pensions, the type of discipline imposed by management
remained entirely discretionary. Accordingly, there was no
set number of warnings an employee had to acquire before
2 All dates are in 1975 unless otherwise specified.
705
progressing to any other level of discipline. Respondent
began keeping tardiness and absence records immediately
following the promulgation of the May 7 rules. On May 22
the first supervisors' meeting was held at which time the
records of each employee were reviewed. Decisions con-
cerning disciplinary action were made at this meeting, and
the affected employees were notified shortly thereafter. Re-
spondent utilized this same procedure henceforth until the
month of October, holding similar supervisors' meetings on
June 17, August 20, and October 1. Thereafter, the individ-
ual supervisors were made responsible for keeping tardi-
ness and absence records and for reporting problem cases
on a day-to-day basis which were then acted upon by the
production manager.
The events which comprise this case occur, for the most
part, in the context of an organizational drive and election
campaign by the Union, which began on May 15 when
employees Jo Ellen Elias, Jeanie Henson, Alice Havisto,
and Donna Brelje began passing out authorization cards
before work in the plant parking lot .3 The Union petitioned
the Board for an election on May 21 (Case 18-RC-10507).
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election signed June 13, an election was held on July 25,
which the Union lost 72 to 11. After receiving various
warnings, discussed below, employees Elias, Henson, and
Brelje were each given 2-day suspensions on September 5.
After further warnings, on October 2 Brelje received a sus-
pension of 11 working days. On November 25 she was dis-
charged.
C. The Alle,ed Unlawful Solicitation of Grievances by
Respondent's Supervision
Production Manager Olson testified it was around the
time of the May 7 meeting concerning the Company's new
rules that he first learned of employee dissatisfaction with
the Company's policy of requiring employees to work over-
time over and above 40 hours per week. It is undisputed
that such dissatisfaction existed. According to both Olson
and Sales Manager Sinn, this employee unrest culminated
in a rumor which was circulating in the plant on May 14
that the employees intended to leave their jobs at the end
of their shift without working any overtime. This rumor
caused Sinn, acting in the absence of General Manager
Kinney, to call a meeting with the employees at 3 o'clock
that afternoon in the cafeteria .4 Sinn began the meeting by
saying that he understood there were some problems con-
cerning mandatory overtime, and that he had also heard
about the possibility of a walkout. Sinn stated that he did
not think a walkout was necessary, and wanted to know
what they could do to avert it. Both Olson and Sinn agreed
that following Sinn's opening remarks the employees virtu-
ally took over the meeting and from this point on it degen-
erated into a chaotic session with the employees firing all
3 There is no dispute that Respondent became aware of the card distribu-
tion activities of these employees on that day through the reports of supervi-
sors to whom cards were offered.
4 Sinn testified that he learned of the rumor from Supervisor Joanne
Bliese . Bliese, who testified as a witness for the General Counsel, was not
questioned about either the rumor or the subsequent meeting even though
the record shows that all supervisors attended.
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR; RELATIONS BOARD
of their various complaints at Smn, and, in addition, argu-
ing with each other. Both Olson and Sinn deny that Sinn
solicited the employees' grievances. Sinn remembered
Donna Brelje asking him if he knew that. mandatory over-
time was against the law, to which he responded that the
Wage and Hour. Commission had informed them that such
was not the case. Jeanie Henson brought up the subject of
wages and wanted to know when they were going to get
raises. She asked why they did not get raises at regular
intervals and compared the incentive program in effect on
one "side" of the plant with the straight hourly program on
the other "side." One of the other employees asked Sinn if
he was afraid- that there was going to be a union in the
Company, to which Sinn answered he was not afraid. By
this time a number of individual debates had, begun among
the employees themselves. As the, situation became more
heated in this respect, Sinn decided that it would be better
to have two people from each side of the plant to get to-
gether with himself and Kinney when Kinney returned on
Monday, May 19, in order to+ "discuss our problems and
see if we could iron them out." The selection of the four
employees who were,to attend this meeting was left up to
the employees themselves. According to Olson and Sinn,
there was no mention of a union in the process of suggest-
ing that four employee representatives meet with manage-
ment on May 19. Later that day the names of the four
employees were left at Sinn's office. However, the May 19
meeting never took place because, on the morning of May
15, management became aware of the commencement of a
union card-signing campaign, and was advised by legal
counsel not to hold any such meetings with employees.
Jeanie Henson testified, "I think ... [the meeting] was
about June." Sinn wanted to know what all the problems
were, what it was the "girls were so mad about ..." and
then stated that he would like to get together with one girl
from each side to get their problems straightened 'out. At
another point in her testimony Henson indicated that Sinn
suggested that he meant one girl from each side of the
union question. After the meeting broke up, Henson and
Helen Berndt were selected by the employees to attend the
subsequent meeting with Kinney. Then Joanne Bliese in-
structed Henson and Berndt to take a pencil and paper and
make a list of the employees' complaints in order that they
could be discussed at' the next meeting. No subsequent
meeting was ever held.5
Donna Brelje's testimony concerning this meeting dif-
fered considerably, from that of Henson. Her version was
much closer to that given by Sinn in his testimony. After
beginning the meeting with a short introductory remark, to
the effect that he understood there were some problems
and was curious to'know what they were,-Brelje agreed that
the meeting became disorganized with bickering back and
forth among the employees, and a lot of questions were
fired at Sinn. She remembered Alice Havisto, asking Sinn if
he was afraid of the Union coming in and' Sinn replying
that he was not. The meeting ended with Sinn saying he
5 Bhese, a witness for the General Counsel, did not testify about this
meeting or about the date Berndt was not called to testify Jo Ellen Elias,
continuously employed by Respondent after April 12, 1974, was not ques-
tioned concerning the employee meeting with Sinn
would like a person or persons to gather all the complaints
from the workers and then bring them to him. On cross-
examination Brelje agreed that the subject of mandatory
overtime arose at this meeting, but she could not recall
whether Sinn raised the subject or whether it arose-from
the workers. Unlike Henson, Brelje conceded that Sinn's
suggestion for a future meeting with Kinney involved two
people from the modular assembly side and two people
from the switch assembly side, not a division of sides on
the basis of union sympathies. Finally Brelje, who con-
fessed having a poor memory concerning dates, testified at
two points that the meeting occurred in August, . but on
cross-examination changed the date to the end of June.
I am persuaded that the employee meeting called by
Sinn occurred on May 14, as Sinn and Olson testified. I
also credit Sinn's version, corroborated by Olson, that the
meeting was called for the purpose of attempting to avert a
rumored work stoppage rather than to solicit the employ-
ees' grievances in order to thwart an embryonic union cam-
paign. This analysis is further confirmed by the credible
testimony of Brelje, that the only mention of a union was
the-oblique question by Alice Havisto concerning whether
Sinn was afraid of having a union. I find that the union
references raised in this guarded context were not suffi-
cient to put Respondent on notice that its employees were
on the verge of embarking on an' organizational' drive.
Since there is no other evidence which might reasonably
have put Respondent upon, notice that a union campaign
was forthcoming, I find that Respondent did not, through
Sinn, unlawfully solicit employee grievances at this meet-
ing or afterwards as alleged-in the complaint. I do not
credit Henson's testimony, unsupported by Bliese, who tes-
tified for the General Counsel, that following the meeting
Bhese instructed her to circulate among the employees with
a pencil and paper in order to make a list of their com-
plaints.
D. The Testimony of Joanne Bliese
One of those in attendance at the May 22, June 17, and
August 20 meetings was Joanne Bliese, supervisor over the
approximately 38 employees in the modular assembly area
until her discharge on September 19. Called as a witness
for the General Counsel, Bliese testified that at the first
such supervisory meeting following the distribution of the
union cards on May 15, she was questioned concerning
how she thought each employee would vote on the union
question in addition to questions concerning each
employee's work. Bliese testified that Henson, Brelje, and
Elias were discussed at almost every meeting, and that dur-
ing the August meeting Herman Sinn stated, "We want to
get what we can on Jeanie and Donna and Jo Ellen. We
want to get-some kind of evidence on them because if they
are here next year they will surely start with the union bit."
Bliese testified further that at the time Henson, Brelje, and
Elias were suspended on September 5, she reported to Sinn
a remark made to her by employee Mary Tuggle to the
effect that it would be nice if the three employees did not
return to the plant any more because they bothered people.
Sinn then suggested that maybe a few of the girls should
state this viewpoint in' the form of a suggestion and place it
IEE/SCHADOW, INC.
in the suggestion box. Immediately thereafter, Bliese then
went to Tuggle and authorized her to get up a petition
against Henson , Brelje , and Elias. On cross-examination by
Respondent's counsel , Bliese's credibility came under
strong attack on the basis of alleged dishonesty and bias
against the Company. Bliese admitted that her discharge
on September 19 occurred because of her failure to report
that the Company had overpaid her for work performed at
home. Bliese also agreed that subsequent to her termina-
tion she had told Mary -Tuggle that she was going to get
even with the Company if it was the last thing she ever did.
Bliese also expressed a desire to assist Brelje who had ap-
peared at her unemployment hearing. I have carefully con-
sidered Bliese's admitted bias against Respondent, the cir-
cumstances surrounding her discharge, and her expressed
intention to retaliate against the Company, in evaluating
her credibility. I do not credit her testimony concerning
Respondent's intention to manufacture reasons to termi-
nate Brelje , Henson, and Elias.
E. The Threats of Discharge to Henson and Bre je, the
Denial of a Wage Increase to Jeanie Henson, and the
Written Warning Issued to her in August
It is undisputed that it has been the consistent practice
of Respondent to give wage increases on a purely discre-
tionary basis, both with respect to the time the increase is
given and as to the amount of the increase given to each
deserving employee. Jeanie Henson testified that starting
in about May she discovered through conversations with
fellow employees that they had received raises while she
had not. According to Henson, she then inquired of Super-
visor Joanne Bliese, in the presence of employee Diane
Jeurissen , concerning the reason why she had not been
called into the office and given a raise. Bliese replied only,
"You know why." 6 Having obtained no explanation from
Bli ese concerning this matter, Henson requested an inter-
view with Herman Sinn . In his office, in the presence of
Tom Olson, Sinn said 'that two people had reported that
Henson was smoking in the bathroom- against company
rules, that she had been harassing people, and that her
work was not good enough. He said if he could prove these
charges Henson would', be dismissed and that there would
be no raises given to her as long as these charges were
against her?
Henson also testified that, during the June 27 conversa-
tion, Sinn accused her of blocking the doors to the plant.
Later, in August, Henson received a written warning from
Sinn for harassing people by blocking the doors to the
building, in that when Henson was passing out union cards
in the parking lot she delayed people from coming into the
6 Bhese did not testify about this incident Diane Jeurissen was not called
as a witness.
7 Almost immediately after giving this version of the conversation, which
Henson testified occurred on June 27, she related a similar prior conversa-
tion with Sinn in his office at an unspecified time in which she testified Sinn
"implied" that if he found out a report that Henson was smoking in the
bathroom was true she would be discharged Henson then changed her
testimony again, pursuant to 'a leading question by General Counsel, and
agreed that Sinn had actually, said she would be discharged if Sinn discov-
ered that the reported smoking incident was true.
707
plant unless they accepted a union card. Sinn also raised
the subject of Henson smoking in the bathroom, and again
said that if they found out this was true she would be dis-
charged, and for her to go home and think about it. On
cross-examination Henson denied ever having passed out
union cards at entrances to the plant. She stated that she
limited her card distribution activities to the employee caf-
eteria. She did recall, however, receiving the written warn-
ing on August 8.
Tom Olson testified that at a supervisors ' meeting on
May 22, attended by Olson, Sinn, Kinney, Bliese, and Lun-
din, Bliese reported that Henson and Brelje were pressur-
ing employees into signmg union cards by, blocking the
door until employees accepted a card. On May 23 Olson
reprimanded Brelje and Henson separately about this mat-
ter. Concerning Henson, Olson said, in the presence of Su-
pervisor Marion Lundin, that he had found out she was
pressuring employees into signing cards by blocking them
from coming through the door without taking a card, and,
in addition, she had been spreading false rumors about
supervisors showing favoritism to some of the employees.
Olson warned that if this conduct continued she would be
subject to further disciplinary action. Henson denied en-
gaging in the conduct which Olson attributed to her. Olson
denied ever having threatened Henson with discharge on
or about June 18 for engaging in activities on behalf of the
Union. He insisted that the only verbal warning he ever
gave to Henson occurred on May 23 following Bliese's re-
port at the supervisory meeting on May 22.
Brelje's testimony supported that of Olson with respect
to the timing of the disciplinary interviews. She testified
that about 2 weeks after the,cards were distributed she was
warned by Olson in his office, with Lundin present, that
she had been disturbing nonumon people by preventing
them from entering the plant and that if it continued she
would lose her employment. I therefore find that it was
Olson, not Sinn, who first warned Henson about allegedly
blocking employees from entering the plant. This inter-
view, like that with Brelje, occurred on May 23. Since the
testimony of Brelje and Henson is mutually corroborative,
except as to the date, I find that Olson did threaten both
employees with discharge during this, interview. Finally,
the fact that no witnesses were produced to substantiate
Olson's assertion that Brelje and Henson had been inhibit-
mg employees' entrance into the plant persuades me that
these verbal warnings were motivated by a desire to inhibit
the employees' activities on behalf of the Union, thus con-
stituting a violation of the Act. This conclusion is rein-
forced by Olson's testimony which clearly shows that he
made no investigation into his supervisor's report before
reprimanding Brelje and Henson. Furthermore, the record
shows that he verbally warned them about these incidents
before they were afforded an opportunity to deny their
occurrence or give any explanation whatsoever.
Herman Sinn denied having a wage review interview
with Jeanie Henson on June 27. Instead, he insisted that
-the interview occurred on August 8. Based on the,records
in evidence, I find August 8 to be the correct date. Some-
time shortly prior to this interview he, reviewed Henson's
file and inquired of her supervisor concerning any specific
problems relating to Henson. It was at this time that Olson
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
learned about Henson's alleged smoking in the restrooms.
According to Olson, he then proceeded to investigate the
incident,, and succeeding in finding two employees who
had observed smoke emanating from a bathroom cubicle
Henson was occupying at the time. On August 8 Henson
was called to Sinn's office and was told that she was not
eligible for an increase in pay at that particular time, but
instead would receive a written warning. She was told that
her productivity was lower than that of which she was ca-
pable and that she had broken the rules of the Company by
smoking in the bathroom. Henson denied having broken
the no-smoking rule, whereupon Sinn announced that he
would conduct an'independent investigation of the matter.
After obtaining signed statements from the witnesses,
Mary Jo Ristow and Susanne Johnston, Sinn presented
Henson with her warning the following week denying her
an increase in pay.
I am convinced that Respondent's denial of a wage in-
crease to Henson occurred on August 8 not June 27, and
that it was actually prompted by her union activities and
not by any breach of company rules. I am not convinced
that Sinn actually conducted the independent investigation
as he testified. On cross-examination Sinn stated that he
prepared in advance for Henson's interview at sometime
between August 1 and August 8. It was during this prepa-
ration that he learned about the smoking incident. How-
ever, it is clear that, although time permitted, no investiga-
tion was conducted prior to Henson's interview. At the
interview, it was only after Henson was told that she would
be denied an increase and given the reasons for this action
that she was afforded an opportunity to deny the conduct
attributed to her. Furthermore, the written warning notice,
dated August 8, 1975, signed by Olson, contains a written
notation at the top, "8/8 Permanent Records HS," clearly
showing that the warning notice was placed in Henson's
permanent records on that date. Under these circumstanc-
es I do not believe Sinn's testimony that he conducted an
independent investigation into the smoking incident after
the August 8 interview, and subsequently denied Henson's
raise.8
I find that the denial of Henson's wage increase and the
simultaneous issuance to her of a written warning under
the circumstances presented violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act. The written warning notice, Joint Exhibit
1(g), clearly bases the issuance of the warning and the deni-
al of the increase in part upon reprimands Henson had
received in the past, which would include the May 23 repri-
mand by Olson found earlier in this Decision to have been
discriminatorily issued. This consideration, together with
the placing of the already prepared warning in Henson's
file without any advance investigation, and Respondent's
failure to present any direct evidence of misconduct on
Henson's part, persuades me that a discriminatory purpose
lay behind Respondent's action.
8 In my view, R. Exh. 1(g) does not support the inference urged by coun-
sel for Resondent in his brief to the effect that the warning notice prepared
on August 8 was simply placed in her file after the investigation confirmed
that Henson had been smoking in the bathroom Moreover, a more objec-
tive procedure, in any event, would be to investigate the circumstances of
the alleged misconduct prior to accusing the employee and performing the
work of drafting the warning notice
F. The Suspensions of Henson, Elias, and Bre je on
September 5
On September 5 Herman Sinn met individually with
Henson, Elias, and Brelje (with Tom Olson and Marlene
Morgan present) and suspended them for 2 days.' Sinn
testified that the reason he gave the three employees was
"creating dissension among employees and talking about
the management of the company." According to Sinn he
based this action on reports from the managers and super-
visors, comments from employees, and comments gleaned
from the suggestion box, some of which were anonymous.
Elaborating, Sinn testified that Joanne Bliese had told him
that girls on the line had complained that Henson cau-
tioned them to slow down. He named employees Gerry
Sprank, Marie Zaschke, and Mary Tuggle as those who
personally complained to him about Jeanie Henson, and
Karen Jensen and Mary Ann Oestreich as the employees
who complained about Jo Ellen Elias and Donna Brelje.
The suggestion box comments accused Elias and Brelje of
spending a great deal of time with one another, talking and
disrupting people. Sinn testified he traced the anonymous
criticisms to Karen Jensen, Mary Ann Oestreich's sister.
Mary Ann Oestreich testified that on September 3 Brelje
said "sooie, sooie, pig, pig" as Supervisor Joanne Bliese
walked by. Bliese did not hear the remark, but Oestreich
reported the incident to Sinn that day. Sinn's reaction was
to ask Oestreich if she would swear to the incident. Oest-
reich, who displayed obvious hostility toward the alleged
discriminatees while testifying, related other "disre-
spectful" comments made in the lunchroom including criti-
cisms about unfairness to the girls on the part of "the big
shots in the office."
Mary Tuggle testified that Jeanie Henson remarked both
before and after the union campaign that the Company
was lousy to work for, and that she hated it. On one occa-
sion during the union campaign Tuggle requested a trans-
fer because of "harassment" from Henson. Tuggle did not
specify how Henson had harassed her, but she repeated the
matter to Sinn and observed that she was thinking of quit-
ting. Sinn responded that Tuggle should stay because Hen-
son probably wanted her to quit. Tuggle also testified that
during the union campaign she heard Henson tell Mary
Zaschke to slow down since she would not be getting any
more pay for what she was doing.
Elias testified that Sinn said she was suspended for talk-
ing about the Company, and may have used the word "dis-
sension." She agreed that in conversations she may have
said the Company was unfair, and may have made dispar-
aging remarks to fellow employees about the Company's
wages, but that everyone talked about such things. She
agreed that at lunchtime she heard Donna Brelje remark
that the employees deserved more wages and it would be
- nice to get a union in to straighten out the Company. Elias
acknowledged that, in advocating the Union's cause, Brel-
je, Henson, and herself expressed dissatisfaction with the
Company to anyone who would listen. Usually these dis-
cussions occurred in the lunchroom.
9
Olson did not refer to the September 5 suspensions in his testimony.
Morgan testified only that she was present, but said nothing
IEE/SCHADOW, INC. 709
Henson and Brelje testified similarly to Elias. Henson
testified that on one occasion Bliese moved her work posi-
tion because she said Tuggle had complained that Henson
was harassing her. Bliese did not recount what Henson was
supposed to have done to Tuggle. Henson denied having
told anyone to slow down. She denied having made any
statements against the Company to Tuggle, but agreed she
had talked to Tuggle about the Union. Henson agreed that
she had said the Company'was unfair, the way the Compa-
ny was being run, and the way, wage increases were given
out, during her lunchtime discussions with Elias, Brelje,
and others . She denied making remarks about individual
members of management . Brelje admitted having said
"oink, oink , pig, pig," as Joanne Bliese passed by, but
could not remember the date.
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act by suspending Elias, Henson , and Brelje on Sep-
tember 5. It is clear from the testimony of Tuggle and
Oestreich that the criticisms leveled at Respondent by Eli-
as, Henson, and Brelje were for the most part set in a con-
text of their day-to-day efforts to persuade employees of
the need for a union in the plant. A number of the inci-
dents upon which Sinn ostensibly relied clearly did not
occur immediately prior to the issuance of the suspensions.
In sum I am persuaded from a consideration of all the
evidence presented on this issue that the "dissension"
which Sinn disliked being spread among the employees was
in fact Elias', Henson's, and Brelje 's aggressive advocacy of
the Union's cause. He, therefore, sought to pointedly dem-
onstrate that such campaign rhetoric was not welcome in
Respondent's plant by suspending Elias, Henson , and Brel-
je on September 5, and I so find.
G. The Verbal Reprimands to Elias on August 21 and
September 18, and the Written Warning Issued to Her on
October 2
Jo Ellen Elias began her employment with Respondent
on April 12 and was continuously employed until she quit
on February 6, 1976. She worked on the switch assembly or
Schadow side under Marion Lundin. She assisted in pass-
ing out union cards at the outset of the organizing drive on
May 15, at which time she offered a union card to Supervi-
sor Lundin. She served as a union observer at the NLRB
election . On August 15, Elias received a verbal reprimand
in the office of Production Manager Tom Olson. Olson
stated that he was issuing her a warning for tardiness and
for throwing bugs at Sherrie Volgelgesang which terrified
Volgelgesang to the point that she screamed . Olson testi-
fied that the warning to Elias was given on August 21, and
I find this testimony to be correct since the record of the
verbal warning is dated 8/21, which was 1 day following
the August supervisory meeting. Elias admitted having
been tardy and having thrown bugs at Volgelgesang. There
is no evidence of disparate treatment . I find that the Gen-
eral Counsel has failed to prove that Elias was repri-
manded for an unlawful purpose.
On October 2 Marlene Morgan gave Elias a written
warning for tardiness and the poor performance of her sta-
tion aid job. The warning notice specified that further de-
terioration in her performance would result in further disci-
pline up to and - including discharge , and that one more
tardiness would result in termination . Elias' attendance
record shows that following her suspension in September
she had been tardy six times between September 12 and 24.
Concerning her work performance , Elias acknowledged
that Marion Lundin had spoken to her on September 18
about errors she had made in her work. Elias' job is impor-
tant because it involves the weighing of trays of parts and
setting up home work. Thus her work affects the pay em-
ployees receive. Elias agreed that Lundin told her to -be
more careful keeping track of the daily slips, and about
checking to see that the correct parts were circled. On Oc-
tober 2 Morgan reviewed the errors Elias had made; 21
between September 1 and 17, of which only 2 were discov-
ered by Elias on rechecking , and 20 errors after September
18, of which Elias discovered only 2 in rechecking . Morgan
showed Elias the list of errors. Elias did not deny making
the errors , but simply said it was human to make mistakes.
Subsequent to the October 2 warning Elias' performance
and attendance improved , and she received no further
warnings . The record does not reveal any evidence which
would establish a relationship between the October 2 writ-
ten warning to Elias and Respondent 's suspension of Elias
on September 5, which I have found to be unlawful. I find
that Respondent did not violate the Act in issuing a written
warning to Elias on October 2.
H. Donna Bre je
1. The warnings issued to Brelje on June 20 and August
21, and her suspension on October 2
Donna Brelje began her employment at IEE/Schadow
on March 21 in the switch assembly area under Supervisor
Marion Lundin. She continued to work in this phase of the
Company's operations until her termination on November
25. There is no question concerning the fact that Brelje was
one of the employees responsible for initiating the Union's
organizational drive, and that Respondent knew of her ac-
tivities , commencing on May 15 when she and Elias dis-
tributed the first authorization cards' to employees and of-
fered cards to Bliese and Lundin. Later Elias and Brelje
served as union observers at the July 25 election . Brelje's
difficulties with Respondent began about 2 weeks after the
union drive began when Tom Olson orally reprimanded
her in his office for allegedly blocking the entrance to the
plant, as discussed earlier in this Decision in connection
with a similar reprimand to Henson that same day. On
June 20, following a supervisors ' meeting on June 17, at
which it was decided to issue verbal warnings to several
employees whose records indicated the existence of atten-
dance problems, Brelje received a verbal warning in
Olson's office for unexcused absences on Friday, June 13,
and Monday , June 16. Brelje told Olson she took her chil-
dren to the doctor on June 13, and on June 16 attended the
NLRB representation hearing. Brelje gave the Company
no advance notice concerning these absences nor was any
evidence presented to show Brelje sought to have these ab-
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sences excused after the fact.10 Four other employees,
whose union sympathies were not identified and who had
similar records of absences or tardiness during the review
period ending June 17, also received verbal warnings. Un-
der these circumstances, I find no unlawful conduct on the
part of Respondent relating to Brelje's June 18 verbal
warning."
On August 21 Brelje received a written warning notice
for absences and tardiness, signed by Olson and read to
her by Sales Manager Sinn in his office in Olson's pres-
ence. Brelje testified that- Sinn said, "I'm presenting you
this because we believe that you've missed, you know, a lot
of work, or enough work to deserve this," after which she
read the warning notice and agreed. The remainder" of the
interview consisted of "small talk." 12 This warning was is-
sued to Brelje immediately after the August 20 supervisors'
meeting at which all employees attended and records were
received. The Company's records show that employees
Berndt, Froemming, Mellgren, and Oestreich also received
written warnings following the meeting. There is no evi-
dence that these persons' union sympathies were known to
Respondent. Brelje's record shows that she was tardy 17
times and absent 1 full day and 2 half days following her
last warning on June 18. I find that Respondent did not
violate the Act by giving Brelje a written warning on Au-
gust 21.
As discussed elsewhere in this Decision, Donna Brelje
was unlawfully suspended for 2 days on September 5. On
October 1 Respondent's supervision and management met
and reviewed employees' absence and attendance records
for the period since August 20. This was the first such
meeting attended by Morgan and Fntzke. Olson attended
in his new capacity as production manager over the switch
assembly area. At this meeting it was decided to suspend
Brelje, to terminate 3 employees, and to issue 19 verbal and
7 written warnings.13 According to Brelje's direct testi-
mony, she was called to Marion Lundin's office on Octo-
ber 2 and, in Lundm's presence, Marlene Morgan stated
Brelje was being suspended for 11 working days for miss-
ing too much work and for excessive tardiness. Brelje pro-
tested this was not fair because people working around her
were missing twice as much work and nothing was done to
them. Morgan ended the conversation by responding that
this was none of Brelje's business.
10 Brelje omitted any reference to this warning from her direct testimony,
but when reminded on cross-examination quickly remembered the incident
and the events which prompted the absences Under these circumstances I
find her testimony, that she could not remember whether or not she notified
the Company that she would be absent those days, evasive and incredible
11 Between the June 17 and August 20 supervisors' meetings, Diane
Braunworth was terminated on July 16 after failing to report for work an
entire week without calling in Valarie Lipinski was discharged on July 10
for having been late once and absent 3 days in I week.
12, I credit this version by Brelje of the August 21 warning interview since
it coincides with Olson's testimony, I do not rely on the inconsistent second
version she gave later in her direct testimony, in which she claimed she
protested to Sinn that the warning was unfair It appears that Brelje con-
f2ised this portion of her testimony with her subsequent account of the
October 2 suspension interview which she protested as unfair because she
claimed other absent employees had not been disciplined
13 One of the written warnings was issued to Jo Ellen Elias No supervi-
sors' meetings to review tardiness and attendance records were held after
this meeting Thereafter, discipline was initiated by the supervisors responsi-
ble.
Marlene Morgan testified that Brelje's tardiness and at-
tendance record revealed that for a short period of time
after receiving a written warning on August 21 Brelje's rec-
ord improved, but then reverted to her former pattern. It
was decided to suspend her. In addition, according to Mor-
gan, she received a report 'from Herman Sinn that while
Brelje was absent on October 1 Brelje telephoned Sinn and
attempted to "coerce" Sinn into agreeing to pay Brelje 4
weeks' severance pay in exchange for dropping the charges
she had filed with the Board and terminating her employ-
ment.i4 Thus, when Morgan suspended Brelje for 11 days,
she described Brelje's offer as "despicable" and based the
suspension, in part, on this incident.
On cross-examination Brelje conceded that she had of-
fered to quit in return for 4 weeks' severance pay, but de-
nied saying that she would drop her charges with the
Board. Nevertheless, she also testified that when Morgan
described her compromise offer as "despicable" she retort-
ed that it may have'been despicable but at least it was a try.
I credit Sinn and Morgan's account over that of Brelje,
who onutted any mention of this incident in her direct tes-
timony despite its being one of the bases for her suspen-
sion as shown on the suspension notice.15
Brelje's record shows that between her August 21 written
warning and October 2 she was absent 4-1/2 days and tar-
dy 6 days. Except for one absence and one tardiness, all of
these infractions occurred after September 15. Thus,
Morgan's appraisal of Brelje's record as having shown a
temporary improvement followed by a sharp decline to her
former habits is correct. An examination of the records of
other employees reveals no disparate treatment. Indeed,
one employee, Anderson, was terminated for having seven
tardinesses and five absences between September 12 and
October 1, a record similar to that of Brelje. Therefore, to
the extent that Respondent based Brelje's suspension on
her record of tardiness and absences, I find no unlawful
motive behind the Company's action. Neither do I con-
clude that Respondent violated the Act by attributing
Brelje's suspension, in part, upon her severance pay pro-
posal. The processes of the Board are remedial, designed to
make whole employees who are the victims of conduct pro-
scribed by the Act, not to punish those responsible, nor to
create circumstances resulting in the enrichment of those
who seek the Board's assistance. Respondent clearly did
not penalize Brelje for using the Board's procedures by
suspending her, in part, for the proposal which she made to
Sinn. Rather, the Company properly, in this instance, ob-
jected to Brelje's abuse of the processes of the Board in
attempting to use her charge to obtain a consideration to
which she was not entitled on any basis. Although Respon-
dent could have simply rejected Brelje's proposal without
further action, to find that Respondent acted unlawfully by
penalizing Brelje's conduct, encourages similar abuses. I
find that Respondent did not violate the Act by suspending
Brelje on October 2.
14 Sinn 's testimony about his conversation with Brelje is in accord with
Morgan's account of what Sinn relayed to her Sinn told Brelje that he was
in no position to make that type of decision on the phone, and that he
would check into the matter and call her back. He did not do so
i5 This notice also alerted Brelje that "any additional attendance prob-
lems or any problems relating to your overall performance will result in
discharge "
IEE/SCHADOW, INC. 711
2. The events leading to Brelje's discharge on
November 25
On October 3, the first full day of her suspension, Brelje
called Morgan and arranged to pick up her paycheck from
the receptionist at the front door of the plant. Later,
against Morgan's express instructions not to enter the plant
itself because she was on suspension, Brelje accompanied
by her three puppies entered through the shipping entrance
and was discovered by Manager Morgan visiting with em-
ployees in the cafeteria. Morgan told Brelje to come to -her
office. Brelje responded that she did not want to talk to
Morgan, and had dust come to get her check, but Morgan
insisted, and eventually Brelje arrived. Morgan reminded
Brelje that she was supposed to enter the front-door, and
Brelje protested that she was not talking to the girls on the
production floor. Then Morgan gave Brelje her paycheck,
instructed her to leave, and Brelje departed through the
assembly area and out the shipping door.16
On October 21, the day following Brelje's return to work,
Morgan talked to Brelje in the cafeteria.- Brelje requested a
raise . When Morgan explained that she was already mak-
ing 25 cents an hour more than the coil-winder,job-normal-
ly paid, Brelje requested to be permitted to transfer back to
her former job, known as the plunger automat, an incentive
job at which Brelje had-previously made $3.50 an hour.
Morgan agreed to consider the matter. On the morning of
October 24, Morgan discovered Brelje reading at her work
station instead of monitoring her machines, which manu-
factured coil springs for the plunger automat machines.
Morgan came uponrBrelje's inattention to her work as the
result of a report from Trudy Sund that her plunger auto-
mat was not operating properly. Nevertheless, later that
afternoon in a conference in the cafeteria, Morgan granted
Brelje's transfer request. Morgan also reprimanded Brelje
for- reading-when she should have been attending her ma-
chines.
Brelje's attendance record reveals that following her sus-
pension she was tardy on November 3 and 24, and absent
for 1-1/2 days on both, November 20 and 21. Early in No-
vember Respondent experienced considerable difficulty
with its plunger automat machines, resulting in a high
number of defective assemblies. Brelje acknowledged at-
tending a meeting with Trudy Sund, Herman Sinn, and
Marlene Morgan in which, this problem was discussed.
Morgan remembered the date of the meeting as November
19.11 Morgan reminded Brelje' and Sund about the instruc-
tions she had issued that the four plunger automat opera-
16 Brelje omitted this incident from her direct testimony, but readily ad-
nutted on cross-examination that she had defied Morgan 's instructions
when she came to the plant to get her check. Brelje's account differs only in
that she claimed she entered and left by the employee entrance To the
limited extent the reasons differ, I credit Morgan Throughout her testimony
Brelje was not a candid witness. She omitted important incidents relating to
her difficulties with the Company, which she was later forced, on cross-
examination, to concede occurred. At other times her memory suddenly
failed when questioned about unfavorable aspects of her case I do not
credit her testimony, where controverted, except as specifically noted
17 This meeting was prompted by a disturbance in the plant earlier that
day Brelje testified that certain of the employees became upset because
their seating arrangement at their work stations had been changed Two
employees walked off the job, and Brelje endeavored to speak to Sinn and
Morgan about the matter about 1 p in in Sinn 's office. Brelje protested that
tors were to record the number of jams, the number of
rejects, and the amount of downtime on their timeslips. On
the morning of November 25, Marion Lundin reported to
Morgan that Donna Brelje had failed to record the request-
ed information, even after Lundin had reminded her. Brel-
je testified that when Lundin confronted her, about the
matter she replied- that it would take too much time, her
percentage would be reduced, and she was not being paid
to record the information. When Morgan approached Brel-
je about her failure to follow the instructions, Brelje an-
swered that she had forgotten. At noon Morgan met with
General Manager Kinney, and reviewed BrelJe's record
and conduct since the day of her suspension. In addition to
her tardiness and absence record, the incidents of Brelje's
reading at her machine and her refusal to record the
plunger automat data were discussed. Morgan's recom-
mendation that Brelje be dismissed was accepted. The ter-
mination interview -took place in Herman Sinn's office with
Morgan present. Morgan stated that because of continued
tardiness and her poor attitude Brelje was terminated.
The General Counsel contends that the record consid-
ered as a whole reveals that Respondent seized on Brelje's
tardiness and absence record and-other incidents relating
to her conduct as a pretext for ridding itself of a trouble-
some union activist. Respondent urges that the evidence
disproves the General Counsel's theory, specifically in that
Respondent failed to avail itself of earlier opportunities to
terminate Brelje. After carefully weighing the evidence of
BrelJe's conduct and record against the entire record, I find
that the General Counsel has failed to prove that Donna
Brelje was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act. I am aware that the finding in an earlier portion
of this Decision that the suspensions of Henson, Elias, and
Brelje on September 5 by Sales Manager Herman Sinn for
"causing dissension" were motivated by these employees'
union activities can be argued to have a "carry over" effect
with respect to Respondent's motive concerning its subse-
quent actions, thereby giving rise to further argument that
Respondent's subsequent conduct was motivated, at least
in part, by unlawful purpose. However, this line of conten-
tion can be overextended. Moreover, there exists an equal-
ly valid perspective, based on the foibles of human nature,
that although Respondent is liable for the acts of each su-
pervisor one may display a propensity to violate the Act,
and another may not, or a given supervisor may act unlaw-
fully at one time and properly on other occasions. Thus, in
many situations, such as presented by the, instant case,
where the evidence shows that in isolated instances Re-
spondent acted in violation of the Act, it does not always
follow that an unlawful pattern of retaliation is revealed.18
the employees involved felt they were being treated like school children, and
that if an explanation had been made in advance the incident probably
would not have happened According to Brelje, Morgan asked who would
make the best supervisor on the Schadow side, and Brelje answered she
would like to try. Morgan countered that Brelje had "everything, going for
you" except she had missed a lot of work Brelje insisted she had improved,
and Morgan agreed, "yes, you have " Morgan remembered having a conver-
sation with Donna Brelje and Trudy Sund after two girls quit when their
tables had been rearranged, but denied discussing Brelje as a potential su-
pervisor I credit Morgan
is I have considered the testimony concerning Donna Brelje's having con-
versed with Al Marchato, a consultant on employee benefit programs from
Continued
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record clearly shows that following the September 5
suspension Brelje continued to incur frequent tardinesses
and absences. Her attitude was one of defying her supervi-
sors' instructions and substituting her own judgment for
theirs as displayed by the paycheck incident and her refus-
al to record the plunger automat data. I conclude that Re-
spondent did not violate the Act in discharging Donna
Brelje on November 25.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By denying Jeanie Henson a wage increase and giving
her a written warning on August 8, and by suspending
Jeanie Henson, Jo Ellen Elias, and Donna Brelje for 2 days
on September 5, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act.
4. By threatening Jeanie Henson and Donna Brelje with
discharge on May 23, because of their union or protected
concerted activities, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. Respondent has not violated the Act in any respect
other than those specifically found.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Because the Respondent discriminatorily denied Jeanie
Henson a wage increase on August 8, and discriminatorily
suspended Jeanie Henson, Jo Ellen Elias, and Donna Brel-
je on September 5 for 2 days, I find it necessary to order
the Respondent to make these employees whole for any
loss of pay, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, they in-
curred by reason of the discrimination practiced against
them in accordance with established Board formulas. I
shall also order the Respondent to delete from its records
any references recorded therein concerning the actions
found herein to be discriminatory.
Finally, I shall order the Respondent to post an appro-
priate notice with respect to the violations found to have
occurred.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
the parent corporation, ITT I find that General Counsel has failed to prove
that Marchato is an agent of Respondent for purposes of this proceeding,
and further find, based on the state of the record, that any inference that
Breije's discharge was in any way related to her having been seen talking to
Marchato is pure speculation
ORDER 19
The Respondent, IEE/Schadow, Inc., Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, its officers, agents, successors, and,.assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a), Warning employees, suspending employees, or deny-
ing employees wage increases, or otherwise discriminating
against them with regard to the hire and tenure of their
employment or any other term or condition of employment
because of their union or protected concerted activities, or
in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge because of
their union or protected concerted activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Jeanie Henson, Jo Ellen Elias, and
Donna Brelje for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered as specified in "The Remedy."
(b) Rescind and delete from its personnel records any
personnel actions or recorded references to the written
warning given Jeanie Henson on August 8, the denial of
Jeanie Henson's wage increase, and the suspensions of
Jeanie Henson, Jo Ellen Elias, and Donna Brelje.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records, and all other records necessary to ana-
lyze whatever amount of backpay may be due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant at Eden Prairie, Minnesota, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 18, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in
all other respects.
19 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
20 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
IEE/SCHADOW, INC. 713
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence , it has been decided that we violated
the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We
intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by
the following:
WE WILL NOT warn, suspend, or deny wage increases
to employees , or otherwise punish employees because
they engaged in union activities or concerted activities
for their mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL make whole Jeanie Henson , Jo Ellen Elias,
and Donna Brelje for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination prac-
ticed against them.
WE hereby rescind our actions in denying Jeanie
Henson a wage increase and issuing a written warning
to her on August 8, 1975 , and in suspending Jeanie
Henson, Jo Ellen Elias , and Donna Brelje on Septem-
ber 5, 1975, and will remove any documentation relat-
ing to these actions from their personnel files.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge be-
cause of their union or protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights.
All our employees are free to engage in union activities
or concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection . Our employees
are also free to refrain from any or all such activities, ex-
cept to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment , as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
IEE/SCHADOW, INC.